Former FBI Director James Comey’s legal team aims to dismiss the Trump administration’s case against him before it reaches trial, although experts suggest this may be a tall order.

Comey’s lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, announced that they plan to file a motion claiming retaliatory and selective prosecution “at the direction of President Trump,” along with a challenge to the appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Harrigan, who is overseeing the case.

If Harrigan had not indicted Comey on September 25, the statute of limitations would have expired soon after. Consequently, it’s crucial for the government to succeed in the removal motion. However, legal analysts believe the allegations Comey is making will be challenging to substantiate.

Comey entered a plea of not guilty. He faces accusations of disrupting Congressional proceedings in September 2020 by misleadingly endorsing someone as an “anonymous source in a news report.”

“Rarely acknowledged.”

Neema Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, mentioned that claims of selective or retaliatory prosecution “almost never succeed,” stressing that proving a discriminatory motive is extremely difficult.

“President Trump’s social media activity will likely be cited as evidence of his animosity and intent to retaliate against Comey,” Rahmani noted. “However, even with this context, a motion for selective prosecution is still unlikely to prevail,” he added, referencing how similar arguments were rejected in the cases against Trump and Hunter Biden.

In a post on Truth Social on September 20, Trump appeared to exert pressure regarding the case, stating that “nothing has been done” about Comey and others. He expressed urgency, saying, “We cannot delay any longer. This will damage our reputation and credibility.”

Eric Siebert, the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, resigned under Trump’s insistence to pursue this case, which allowed Harrigan to step in.

Recently, Harrigan managed to obtain two indictments against Attorney General Letitia James, citing bank fraud and false statements to a financial entity.

Rahmani further indicated that a challenge to Harrigan’s appointment has even less likelihood of success than the prosecutorial retaliation claim. “While Harrigan lacks prosecution experience, attorneys general can be appointed ad hoc, and such appointments are generally accepted by courts,” he said.

Legal analyst Sol Weisenberg suggested that the challenge against Harrigan might hold more significance than the two proposed motions, even though both are incredibly tough hurdles.

There’s a debate about whether Harrigan’s appointment, which followed Siebert’s, is legally valid. Siebert was supposed to step down on May 21, but a federal judge allowed him to continue for a while longer.

“Comey will argue that this was only a temporary solution and that the court needed to designate a new acting U.S. attorney,” explained Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.

Turley pointed out that this technical issue could potentially derail the case since the government cannot retroactively amend the charges.

Fitzgerald has also hinted at additional motions that the defense is still reviewing, including potential allegations of grand jury misconduct and “outrageous government conduct.”

“This judge knows what he’s doing.”

If any of Comey’s challenges succeed, Turley suggested that the case could become mired in appeals for an extended period.

Nonetheless, the presiding judge, who set a trial date for January 5, expressed a desire to keep things on track without delays.

Weisenberg commented that the Eastern District of Virginia is functioning at a swift pace, despite the government’s claims about processing substantial amounts of classified material.

Fitzgerald mentioned that the defense has yet to receive essential discovery materials and does not even know who “Person 1” or “Person 3” mentioned in the indictment are.

Reports suggest that “Person 3,” whom Comey authorized as an anonymous source, might be Daniel Richman, while “Person 1,” the recipient of leaked information, could be Hillary Clinton.

Internal FBI documents from August related to the “Arctic Haze” leak investigation noted that Comey had hired Richman to discuss classified matters outside the FBI’s leadership structure.

Judge Michael Nachmanoff, appointed by Biden and a former public defender, is managing the case.

Weisenberg noted, “This judge knows what he’s doing. He’s probably cautious about making some of the remarks that might be made by a jury in Washington, D.C.”